Subscriptions or Not

[Game of Bones.8975]

I recently joined one of those monthly subscription MMOs just to see if it was different from a F2P. I was surprised at my mental transformation. Here are a few of the things I found out.

I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost whipped out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

After few weeks I began to see the draw for a subscription. Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests and I didn’t feel like I was grinding for materials.

I can now see why people think if GW went to a subscription format it would be an improvement. It couldn’t be done with GW2, there would be just too many changes to the economy for it to be worthwhile.

If ever there is a GW3, I don’t think I’ll be as turned off as much as I used to be.

[Cristalyan.5728]

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I recently joined one of those monthly subscription MMOs just to see if it was different from a F2P. I was surprised at my mental transformation. Here are a few of the things I found out.

I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

After few weeks I began to see the draw for a subscription. Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests and I didn’t feel like I was grinding for materials.

I can now see why people think if GW went to a subscription format it would be an improvement. It couldn’t be done with GW2, there would be just too many changes to the economy for it to be worthwhile.

If ever there is a GW3, I don’t think I’ll be as turned off as much as I used to be.

This debate again?

Well, a good part of the GW2 players are here because the game has no subscription. For a "casual friendly" game, a subscription, leading you to "feel obligated to play" is a contradiction of terms.

For the part with "Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests" - you can turn the sum you want to be the subscription into gems. You can sell the gems for gold. With the gold you can buy materials/items you need - without grinding.

As a note - the players owning GW2 + HoT + PoF are not F2P. They bought the game and the expansions, according to the ANet own business model. A model ANet considered to be viable. You know, you are trying to change a business model for an entire company.

As for a GW3 - well, for a Company to have profit from subscriptions, it should have players. And I doubt that too many GW2 players will play a subscription game.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

Sub has little to do with how "grindy" a game is, and there are more than a few with subs over the years that were very grindy, as some MMOs and some markets actually enjoy the grind (many Asian markets). What exactly do you feel in the gem store is the reason for GW2 feeling grindy? Many sub based games also have just as big or bigger focus on cash shops.

What game were you playing that had a sub?

[Raknar.4735]

I've played my fair share of subscription games, but even those added a shop or other additional paid-for items after some time.Aside from some exceptions like WoW, the "higher" quality of a sub game compared to a B2P or even F2P game was barely noticable to me. I don't miss the sub model.

The game I've got the most value out of was a B2P game, WC3. The sheer amount of content that game created by letting the community create maps is astounding.It's funny how player-created things tend to create new genres (MOBA, Battleroyale, Autochess), yet no MMORPG has tried to make player-created content a huge thing (RIP Peria Chronicles).

If there ever is a GW3, I wouldn't play it if it is sub based. There are just enough alternatives.

[Randulf.7614]

I have never seen any correlation that a sub improves gameplay or makes it less grindy in an MMO

[Dawdler.8521]

Theres no grind in sub games, lol?

Sub games even have ingame stores and microtransactions nowadays...

[Xar.6279]

Games with subscriptions are better. It was always like that. Nothing new actually. Almost every good mmorpg I remember was p2p.

• Ultima Online (1997)
• Helbreath (1999)
• Eve (2003)
• WoW (2004)
• FF14 (2010)

Etc, etc.

There's a lot of hidden reasons which makes p2p games better. Too long to write it all.But its impossible for GW2 to go p2p.This game is quite different than average mmorpg.

[Danikat.8537]

@Game of Bones.8975 said:I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't like subscription games. I feel like I have to play it because I've already paid for it, and then I don't enjoy it as much because I feel like I'm forcing myself to play it even when I might otherwise choose to play anyway. Although the other issue for me is that I really do end up wasting my money. My job is pretty unpredictable, my family all live a long way away and my other hobbies can be unpredictable so it's impossible for me to know in advance how much time I'll have to play over the next 30 days. I could easily end up paying a subscription and then barely logging in, and even if I can afford it I don't want to waste money like that. The buy-to-play model works much better for me because even if I buy something then don't get to log in for a while I know it will be there waiting for me when I'm ready, and won't cost any extra.

But also in my experience it also leads to changes in game design to ensure you spend more time in-game. A lot of people keep asking why training your mount skills in Elder Scrolls Online is time-gated (1 point per day, meaning it takes 180 days to fully train a characters riding skills) and the answer is because originally the game was subscription based and like the time gates on crafting and the emphasis on daily quests it was a way to ensure players wanted to keep logging in - and therefore keep paying their subscription - even if they weren't 'really' playing much. Drop your subscription and you'll fall behind on crafting research, mount training, chances at those elusive dungeon drops and whatever else.

I don't mind that and I don't think one approach is fundamentally always better than another, but I think it's important to consider. Pressures to spend your time on a game, and therefore pay for that time, might be more subtle and more accepted by players (especially since in some cases that's been going on nearly as long as games have existed - arcade games were built around a similar model of paying for time or attempts) but it comes to the same thing.

The important thing IMO is to work out what factors are most important to you, and then find a game which checks as many of the right boxes as possible. For you that might be a subscription, for me it's definitely not.

[Xar.6279]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't like subscription games. I feel like I have to play it because I've already paid for it, and then I don't enjoy it as much because I feel like I'm forcing myself to play it even when I might otherwise choose to play anyway.

Most people needs to be motivated (or as you call it: "forced") to play more. Otherwise they won't. And this is good for mmorpg game to be played more often by its players. Than less. This kind of games have to be addictive. Otherwise they're usually dying. Most people also like this feeling of having acces to something inaccessible for others. It makes them feel better. Unique.

Even if it comes to ingame goals. Most people prefer to be "forced" to play some content. Pushed to do it. Rather than look for some goals on their own.

[Game of Bones.8975]

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:Sub has little to do with how "grindy" a game is, and there are more than a few with subs over the years that were very grindy, as some MMOs and some markets actually enjoy the grind (many Asian markets). What exactly do you feel in the gem store is the reason for GW2 feeling grindy? Many sub based games also have just as big or bigger focus on cash shops.

What game were you playing that had a sub?

I was trying out WoW: Battle for Azeroth.

I still have some time on my subscription, but don't think I'll renew.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@"Xar.6279" said:Games with subscriptions are better. It was always like that. Nothing new actually. Almost every good mmorpg I remember was p2p.

• Ultima Online (1997)
• Helbreath (1999)
• Eve (2003)
• WoW (2004)
• FF14 (2010)

Etc, etc.

There's a lot of hidden reasons which makes p2p games better. Too long to write it all.But its impossible for GW2 to go p2p.This game is quite different than average mmorpg.

Eve has had a pretty bad reputation from leadership to game play to community (and a cash shop and many consider it moving to pay2win). FF14 had ungodly critical reviews at release and the user base went mad, so bad that they "suspend subscription fees, indefinitely postponed the PlayStation 3 version, and replaced the development team leadership" FF14 also still has a cash shop. WoW, for end game gear big time, is super grindy and pretty much all RNG, this was supposed to be fixed, it also has a good sized cash shop still, and things like mounts are $25-30 a pop.

[Danikat.8537]

@Xar.6279 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:

@"Game of Bones.8975" said:I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

This is one of the big reasons why I don't like subscription games. I feel like I have to play it because I've already paid for it, and then I don't enjoy it as much because I feel like I'm forcing myself to play it even when I might otherwise choose to play anyway.

Most people needs to be motivated (or as you call it: "forced") to play more. Otherwise they won't. And this is good for mmorpg game to be played more often by its players. Than less. This kind of games have to be addictive. Otherwise they're usually dying. Most people also like this feeling of having acces to something inaccessible for others. It makes them feel better. Unique.

Even if it comes to ingame goals. Most people prefer to be "forced" to play some content. Pushed to do it. Rather than look for some goals on their own.

I understand developers need to think about it like that because they need to find ways to keep people playing so the game is active. But thinking about it as a player, with no considerations other than what I want to do if I sit down at the computer to play a game and find myself thinking "I really should play X since I've paid for the time" then I'm instantly less excited about playing it, even if I otherwise want to. It becomes something I have to get through rather than a fun activity, but if I don't then I feel guilty about wasting the money. And at that point I'd rather stop playing completely, unsubscribe and find a game where I don't have to worry about it. Which means in my case it's also better for the developers because I'll keep playing longer, if even if it's not every single day.

This is also why I say there's no point in developers trying to make one game which will appeal to everyone, or even all MMO players. And no point in players worrying about "How could they get everyone to play this game?" or "Will everyone quit when X is released?" What makes one person want to play a game is exactly what puts someone off even buying it. It's impossible to make one that absolutely everyone will prefer over the other options.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Game of Bones.8975 said:I recently joined one of those monthly subscription MMOs just to see if it was different from a F2P. I was surprised at my mental transformation. Here are a few of the things I found out.

I felt “obligated” to play with a subscription. If I wasn’t playing, my subscription was a waste. At one time I almost kitten out a spreadsheet to see how many hours per week and per day I would have to play on average to make it worth the money. That, in itself, made the experience less fun.

After few weeks I began to see the draw for a subscription. Everything you wanted/needed was yours for a few quests and I didn’t feel like I was grinding for materials.

I can now see why people think if GW went to a subscription format it would be an improvement. It couldn’t be done with GW2, there would be just too many changes to the economy for it to be worthwhile.

If ever there is a GW3, I don’t think I’ll be as turned off as much as I used to be.

The evolution of sub-based to buy-to-play to buy-to-play-cashshop to optional sub has been the markets reply to gamers saying what if. I think I spend more on games that are just cash shop and that allows people that are never cash shop to get free content. Personally I think for me the best bang for the buck is the optional sub. Now that will draw out the people that call for pay to win, but it's easier than forcing everyone into a sub. Under a sub, yes you have reasons to get online since you are paying for it and I think it also gives people more reason to say, hey this bug needs fixed now, not in 5 months, hey that feature, when are we getting it, we will go till it's addressed. Without that I think companies lose metrics to address issues and they can use the marketing card of we are working on it and no we don't need to talk to you about it. Forum goers in buy to play games are more likely to counter other posters where in sub-based games there is more voices behind, why isn't this fixed or this feature could use improvements, at least in my own experience. I admit I have done this myself here and try and keep that checked. Not there now, but take Bethesda and Fallout 76, Fallout only people are up in arms about Fallout First but a number of ESO players that are used to the model are, what's up, this is a value add. So it does come down to perspective and what people are expecting. Take a number of upcoming MMOs, they are planning on sub-based from the gate even though they know it might make them more niche markets. Again personally I expect most will continue to move to a la carte pricing models to try and match as many player expectations as possible and still acquire revenue and ongoing development dollars. I also expect players that are willing to pay for a sub saying what does that get me and others that will come out and say if you get anything from a sub that I don't by doing just a buy-to-play then its pay to win. To that end we all need to try and keep things in check since the middle ground is there should be value in paying more since you paid more but if we can prevent everyone from a sub we might get the most number of players out of the deal and MMOs need players, but we should also avoid things like gold rounds in World Of Tanks that means one on one the person shooting gold will win. Good gaming where you find it!

[Kaliwenda.3428]

Over the summer I played FFXIV through the free trial level. Once I got to 35 I just stopped, because I wasn't ready to commit to a sub and getting the expansions I'd need to progress thru the story.

I came back to GW2 and made that the focus of my game time again. The best part was that I didn't feel like I had lost any character progress and could just pick up where I left off, gear-wise.

I like GW2's business model in that when I do put money into the game, it's for the specific things I care about.

[mtpelion.4562]

You pay every month to have your gear made obsolete so that you'll pay every month to get new gear.

[Ashantara.8731]

@"TinkTinkPOOF.9201" said:Sub has little to do with how "grindy" a game is

Exactly. The amount of hours you spend playing aren't always an indicator for how willing you are to spend money on the game.

Besides, no subscription could save the game if the devs don't get their kitten together and start listening to their playerbase rather than always doing their own thing, then act surprised over the enormous complaints.

[Danikat.8537]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:and I think it also gives people more reason to say, hey this bug needs fixed now, not in 5 months, hey that feature, when are we getting it, we will go till it's addressed. Without that I think companies lose metrics to address issues and they can use the marketing card of we are working on it and no we don't need to talk to you about it. Forum goers in buy to play games are more likely to counter other posters where in sub-based games there is more voices behind, why isn't this fixed or this feature could use improvements, at least in my own experience.

How's that working for ESO? Yes the forums are always full of people threatening to unsubscribe until X is fixed or Y is added and even encouraging other people to do the same. But I'm not convinced it actually leads to problems being fixed more quickly or changes the community actually wants.

[TheGrimm.5624]

@Danikat.8537 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:and I think it also gives people more reason to say, hey this bug needs fixed now, not in 5 months, hey that feature, when are we getting it, we will go till it's addressed. Without that I think companies lose metrics to address issues and they can use the marketing card of we are working on it and no we don't need to talk to you about it. Forum goers in buy to play games are more likely to counter other posters where in sub-based games there is more voices behind, why isn't this fixed or this feature could use improvements, at least in my own experience.

How's that working for ESO? Yes the forums are always full of people threatening to unsubscribe until X is fixed or Y is added and even encouraging other people to do the same. But I'm not convinced it actually leads to problems being fixed more quickly or changes the community actually wants.

ESO isn't a full sub model, so to me it goes pretty well. When I am not happy with them I am not playing or subing. Here we have no recourse, and you will see me quite often defending, because I agree I am not paying anything so it's up to them what they offer us. Now that said, here when I disagree I also will not support the gem store. Do I think they can see this in records, yes, but will they link that to how well they are doing or the quality of the offerings in the store? I think that leaves them in a grey area if they use that directional data on how well they are doing, where as ESO can at least use the optional sub of saying, ok, something is not working. Again that's why I think more options in pricing models is the best since it hits the most players with options that fit their own expectations of cost and value compared to game time.

[Nilkemia.8507]

Sighs. This again? The answer, at least as far as guild Wars 2 is concerned, and even before it with the first one, has been a decided "No" regarding subscriptions. Subscriptions themselves don't make a game better or are indicative of an increased level of quality, the developers do that. And on top of it, it is, at least to me, a huge discouragement to entry. I already paid to buy the game, it makes little sense to have to pay more just to play it as well. It also means any time not playing that is wasting money. I'd rather play the game because I want to, not because I feel compelled to for other reasons other than enjoying it.

[Roquen.5406]

The psychological effect of sub-models is interesting. Most games put that monthly fee at ~$15, sometimes a little more or less depending on how long you sub for. Such as 3 months or a year giving you a rate of $12-13 per month. On average at $15 per month you are looking at ~$180 a year for most likely thousands of hours worth of content.

If you look at any other activity, you likely spend a lot more than that. If you go out for drinks/dinner, easily $5-10 per drink plus food is another $15-30. So that's upwards of $40 on the low end just for going out one night. Or if you go to a movie, $10-20 per ticket (depending on location or if you go do a $5 Tuesday type deal if offered) and if you get concession items that's another $10-20. Once again you are looking at $20-40 just for maybe a 2 hour movie? Do either of those things even just once a month and in half a year you've already spent the same if not more than your subscription for an entire year.

Let's say you only get to play 4 hours a month. At $15 / 4 hours is $3.75 per hour of your time played.

Now compare that to the above - in this case only doing these activities once:

Drinks/Dinner: $25 (2 drinks at $5 per plus $15 for food) - $25 / 4 hours (in terms of just dinner + drinks ) is $6.25 per hour spent.Movie: $15 (Average ticket cost - no concessions) - $15 / 2 hours (Most movies are about 2 hours now give or take 30 min) is $7.5 per hour spent.

This is generalized and probably an oversimplification but a quick example of how much we spend in other areas of our life without batting an eye. And there are many other factors such as tax, tip, how often you go out, if you treat others, where you live, or if you purchase stuff in game, etc. However, even on the low end of playtime you are still getting a better value of dollar/hour.

Yet paying $15 per month traps us into a state where we must do X amount to get our money's worth.

Anyways, this game will never add a subscription model. The game is that of a different beast - it was sold on the fact of it's casualness so that you can drop in and out as you please without worry with a supplemental cash shop - that does well for them. The amount and cadence of content being released would have to be different to hold players interest enough to justify them paying a fee every month.

[Ayrilana.1396]

GW2 attracts the ultra casual gamer and marketing the game to those that don’t enjoy the typical MMO. Similar to how Planet Fitness markets to those that don’t actually like to workout. Anet charging a subscription would not go over well. Even an optional subscription would be unlikely to go over well either.

[Trise.2865]

You played a new game that had a subscription fee and enjoyed it for a while.Good! Glad you're having fun. It's important to expand your horizons and experience new things.

[Xar.6279]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:

@"Xar.6279" said:Games with subscriptions are better. It was always like that. Nothing new actually. Almost every good mmorpg I remember was p2p.

• Ultima Online (1997)
• Helbreath (1999)
• Eve (2003)
• WoW (2004)
• FF14 (2010)

Etc, etc.

There's a lot of hidden reasons which makes p2p games better. Too long to write it all.But its impossible for GW2 to go p2p.This game is quite different than average mmorpg.

Eve has had a pretty bad reputation from leadership to game play to community (and a cash shop and many consider it moving to pay2win). FF14 had ungodly critical reviews at release and the user base went mad, so bad that they "suspend subscription fees, indefinitely postponed the PlayStation 3 version, and replaced the development team leadership" FF14 also still has a cash shop. WoW, for end game gear big time, is super grindy and pretty much all RNG, this was supposed to be fixed, it also has a good sized cash shop still, and things like mounts are $25-30 a pop.

It no matter if FF14 was well or bad rated at start tbh. Don't forget their publisher is Square... They know very well what to do. And how to succeed.And Final Fantasy isn't some random title for them. It's the apple of their eye.Squaresoft/enix is synonymous of quality for more than 30 years now. Most of their games are pieces of art.

It was only a matter of time before they fix their game.

Also you can tell bad or good things about WoW. And after all it no matter. Grindy or not grindy. Who cares? It's WoW who's still top1 for about 15 years now. Not GW2.

[AlexxxDelta.1806]

You are posting this question in the forums of a game that used the "no sub" part, as one of its main selling points.

So take a guess (or read through any of the previous threads about this, we have plenty of those).

[Dawdler.8521]

@TheGrimm.5624 said:

@Danikat.8537 said:

@TheGrimm.5624 said:and I think it also gives people more reason to say, hey this bug needs fixed now, not in 5 months, hey that feature, when are we getting it, we will go till it's addressed. Without that I think companies lose metrics to address issues and they can use the marketing card of we are working on it and no we don't need to talk to you about it. Forum goers in buy to play games are more likely to counter other posters where in sub-based games there is more voices behind, why isn't this fixed or this feature could use improvements, at least in my own experience.

How's that working for ESO? Yes the forums are always full of people threatening to unsubscribe until X is fixed or Y is added and even encouraging other people to do the same. But I'm not convinced it actually leads to problems being fixed more quickly or changes the community actually wants.

ESO isn't a full sub model, so to me it goes pretty well. When I am not happy with them I am not playing or subing. Here we have no recourse, and you will see me quite often defending, because I agree I am not paying anything so it's up to them what they offer us. Now that said, here when I disagree I also will not support the gem store. Do I think they can see this in records, yes, but will they link that to how well they are doing or the quality of the offerings in the store? I think that leaves them in a grey area if they use that directional data on how well they are doing, where as ESO can at least use the optional sub of saying, ok, something is not working. Again that's why I think more options in pricing models is the best since it hits the most players with options that fit their own expectations of cost and value compared to game time.ESO was full sub model at release and it basicly crashed and burned with 3 months because support was absolute kitten, the game was a buggy mess and servers that where promised didnt even exist and they purpously hid that from the EU community.